Londoners might soon notice the slogan above on local buses: the Atheist Bus campaign starts today, with the purpose of raising money to promote atheism as a positive force in the culture and to encourage people to stop wasting time and effort in silly superstitions. Urban England seems like a strange place to start such a campaign; rural America needs it more, although the costs would be significantly greater, as they’d have to cover the replacement cost of all the buses that were set on fire.

You can donate, too. The campaign opened just today, and their goal was to raise £5500 — I’m amused to see that they reached that goal by 10am the very first morning, and now have £17000, and the number keeps going up.

What a wonderful idea! If I had any money I’d donate.
Some of the comments over at the Guardian are a bit depressing though. They think this is militant atheism? Oh well, I’m finally convinced that “militant” has transformed to have the same meaning as “not cowering silently in a corner”. Good to know.

From the BBC article, “But Stephen Green of pressure group Christian Voice said: “Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large.
“I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti.
“People don’t like being preached at. Sometimes it does them good, but they still don’t like it.” ”

So…christians are probably going to go paint the buses. And that last sentence is quite possibly the most ironic thing ever.

I have to wonder how many might be swayed by that ad, to start applying critical thinking to the concept of religion. I know that most from the “shut up because god is good for you” camp might have trouble. To that lot, not believing in a god means the complete abandonment of all morality and compassion. And the fact that they can’t fathom civilized behavior on their own is supposed to make the non-religious look bad.

You know, I’m coming around to this. They’ve made nearly 22,000 pounds so far and it’s going up each time I refresh,

So there is enthusiasm for the campaign, and most likely it will encourage more people to talk about the “probable” non-existence of God and the implications for their lives.

20,000 pounds is peanuts in advertising terms, but as it’s already, on its first day, getting worldwide coverage in the newspapers there’s a magnifying effect there.

An interesting development here where the British Methodists say “We are grateful to Richard for his continued interest in God and for encouraging people to think about these issues. This campaign will be a good thing if it gets people to engage with the deepest questions of life.”

The Methodists, to be sure, don’t insist on biblical literalism, so certainly their religion tends to require more sophisticated thinking than literalist sects. However there are few British methodists, probably fewer than there are atheists

#5, this is actually desperately needed in London – in recent years the city has become a seething ratfuck of fruitloop fundamentalist churches, many of which prey on poorly educated immigrant populations. There have been several cases in recent years of members of evangelical churches in London torturing children – sometimes to death – in ‘exorcism’ rituals; google “Victoria Climbie” if you’ve a strong stomach, or see http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/feb/25/childprotection.childrensservices

A quick predition – it will take less than a week for a Muslim or evangelical bus driver to claim ‘victimisation’ when they get suspended for refusing to drive a bus with one of these ads on the side.

#19, the main reason I’m coming around to the this campaign is the thought of how the loopier religious nuts will react to it. This in itself will tend to sow division within the religions. It has been already condemned by some people as “militant”, which is funny in itself.

I doubt many people, if any, will be persuaded by the ad to give up religion. But possibly it might make some people think about atheism in a positive way, or enter it into their minds as a possible option, and I’d say that’s worthwhile.

That “probably” is there because without it there was almost no chance of the adverts getting on the buses. Which is bizarre because religious people frequently make the most bizarre claims in their adverts without a shred of evidence to back them up.

How wonderful XD I’ll have to see if I can find some money to donate. I think the best thing about it is, a lot of the donations are for small amounts and we’re still making a big difference, it just goes to show you how many athiests there are out there who are tired of just being quiet.

I think the general idea of these adverts is great, but I’m not a fan of the specific slogan. Hopefully since they seem to be raising more money than expected, they can expand this scheme and get some tougher/more interesting ads up.

There’s probably no god? There’s probably no magic fairy hiding in the clouds?

Probably? What bullshit. Using the word “probably” is sucking up to religious insanity. There is definitely no magic fairy hiding in the clouds. There is definitely no god.

Does anyone say there’s probably no pink elephants orbiting Pluto? No of course not. Saying “probably” would be sucking up to people who believe elephants live in outer space. It’s equally insane to believe in a magic fairy so let’s not say they are probably wrong. They are definitely wrong.

BobC – If you say ‘There’s definitely no God’, religious types will ask you to prove it – which you cannot do, in the same way that they cannot prove the opposite.
I’ve contributed anyway, I think it’s a great idea.

Probably is there because otherwise there would be no bus slogan, that’s the only way they can do it. Stagecoach, a bus firm in the Midlands and also in Sheffield would refuse to do the ads completely even with ‘probably’

OK, I’ve given to Kay Hagan, Elwyn Tinklenberg, and the FFRF. Guys, I’m living on a fixed income and can’t afford nearly as much as I would like. Still they accepted £2 from me on my Visa card. That’s more in USD. It would be great if we could have some of these here. Oh, and it was over £26,000 when I did it.

This is great!
I have my own personal campaign going with bumper stickers on my ho red GMC pickup. I have a FSM little chrome job to piss off all the jebus fishers, Fuck Bush to offend republicans, and People who believe in hell deserve it, to offend the religious. My big red A gets no attention whatsoever, no one in Dumbfuckistan knows what it means.

BobC – If you say ‘There’s definitely no God’, religious types will ask you to prove it

And they’ll bring up today’s most famous atheist’s, Dawkins, statement that “there almost certainly is no god.” “Probably” is a soft-sell from even that, but saying there “definitely is no god” is an invitation to reaction.

Still, there’s a problem with “probably,” which is that the uncertainties of memory, human knowledge, and death, are what religion uses. Many will take from it that there “probably is no hell,” which is not much comfort to anyone who fears hell. Pascal has had many takers for his wager.

What we can say is that there is no hell. We can’t say that we know absolutely there’s no hell, but we can be as sure of that as that little Billy has no monster under his bed. God is perhaps a little more tricky, but we could really say “there is no god,” while “there definitely is no god” would be overplaying our capacity for “true knowledge.”

So I think I’d say something on the line that “there is no god, move along now.” “Probably” just leaves too much doubt to be exploited, in my view.

In all actuality, I agree with a few posters but for different reasons… like this one –

Probably? What bullshit.

The simple fact is that if one truly believes something, there is no probably about it. It destroys the message. Taking the statement ‘as is’, I’d much rather debate from the position of your having shot yourselves in the foot than expressing any believed contrary position.

The statement is no better than Bush’s declaration of a sound economy.

If you say ‘There’s definitely no God’, religious types will ask you to prove it – which you cannot do, in the same way that they cannot prove the opposite.

I understand why they say “probably”, but I disagree with it as well. Do we say there’s “probably” no Santa Claus?

For me, at least, the whole god thing has gone well beyond their inability to convince me that it exists and well into that they can’t even convince me they have good reason for believing it themselves, to the point that the very word “god” has no meaning.

Even if you are using a half assed analogy, please get the facts straight. They were in the northern Atlantic. Plenty of icebergs floating around. They were told that the Titanic was unsinkable.

Getting pedantic I see. Ok, lets play one time.I’m bored as WoW is not up yet.

Yes, the Titanic was in northern latitudes, but its route, iirc, was put further south due to possible ice conditions. Also, no one was told the Titanic was unsinkable, at least by the White Star Line. Iron will sink. The Unsinkable story was taken out of context. Get your facts straight.

It’s a valid point for atheists to question whether an apparent campaign of ‘conversion’ using a poster campaign is something we should support. We are not organised – we all have our own worldviews, politics, many quite different – the only thing that unites us is a dis-belief in supernatural deities.

But when I thought about it again it just seemed to me to be worth it as a talking point to get people thinking. The only thing that will eventually eliminate religion is better education and better critical thinking.

As a Brit I can say that most Brits are not active christians but many would probably say they vaguely associate with the concept without really knowing what they are subscribing to. So a poster campaign like this would at least get people thinking about the issue of a god(s). And I’m confident that with more thinking on this issue, that fewer people will believe in a god.

No one ever claimed that the Titanic was “unsinkable”. The quote, “practically unsinkable” [I believe this to be a typo error as it should read “unsinkable”] was taken out of context. In 1911, Shipbuilder magazine published an article describing the construction of the Titanic. The article stated that when the watertight doors were closed, the ship would be “practically unsinkable”.

Your bus does not claim that there is no god (unsinkable), but that there probably is no god (practically unsinkable). yet so many here state the affirmative “there is no god”, or “god does not exist”, or whatever is popular at the moment.

On The Guardian newspaper blog on this issue it was said that the ‘probably’ is in the advertisement because the advertising authority wouldn’t accept the blunt ‘there is no God’ in case it offended believers! I haven’t seen that confirmed by the advertising authority – but it sounds true!

But I have to agree with another contributer to the blog who suggested that a long term solution to religion in the UK is compolsory viewing of ‘The Life of Brian’!

The simple fact is that if one truly believes something, there is no probably about it.

Yep, that’s the typical theist position: “I believe it, therefore it is True.” It is exactly that attitude which moves me from merely being an atheist towards antitheism. You are, by adopting this sloppy and arrogant position with regards to atheism, confirming the accusation so often leveled by theists: that atheism is a religion too. In your case this seems to be a valid comment.

It was a nice try tsg, hijacking the thread off on a tangent. Or did the topic get off the bus somewhere?

I’m not the one who was comparing “The Titanic is unsinkable” to “god does not exist”.

But, since you don’t have any apparent desire to have a serious discussion, and would rather make vague implications so you can say something without really saying anything, I’ll just assume you will deny that’s what you meant and save a bunch of time.

The problem with this discussion about “probably” is that already committed atheists are clearly not the target group of this campaign.

So the question is what kind of message will be the most efficient in getting these people to think.

You’re quite right on the target group. But those you wish to reach will see it (probably) as weak. The alternative is being direct (Posted by: gazzaofbath | October 21, 2008 1:16 PM) which would also be a mistake.

The problem most ardent atheists have is that any discussion seemingly is one way, the atheist’s way. So “what kind of message will be the most efficient in getting these people to think” requires a quid pro quo. Unfortunately, any quid pro quo delivered a la Dawkins or Hitchens will not be well received. Ridicule never is.

#66 “On The Guardian newspaper blog on this issue it was said that the ‘probably’ is in the advertisement because the advertising authority wouldn’t accept the blunt ‘there is no God’ in case it offended believers!”

You’re quite right on the target group. But those you wish to reach will see it (probably) as weak.

I don’t think you’re right. In Britain, the “probably” will be seen as un-dogmatic, un-pushy and friendly, and thus in line with British style for effective advertising. (Brits often react badly to brash US-style TV adverts.)

But, since you don’t have any apparent desire to have a serious discussion, [and would rather make vague implications so you can say something without really saying anything, I’ll just assume you will deny that’s what you meant and save a bunch of time.]

Posted by: Coel | October 21, 2008 1:49 PM
Salt says: You’re quite right on the target group. But those you wish to reach will see it (probably) as weak.

I don’t think you’re right. In Britain, the “probably” will be seen as un-dogmatic, un-pushy and friendly, and thus in line with British style for effective advertising. (Brits often react badly to brash US-style TV adverts.)

You’re right about US adverts being brash. We do not get adverts like in the EU (oh la la).

Are you suggesting that the British are more pliable than other cultures? And how will this message be received in your growing Islamic community?

As an aside, this type of a campaign has a hard road to hoe. But I’d like to posit that if inroads in diminishing Christianity were to be accomplished, say even world wide, atheists may just find far less tolerance from Islam and fondly look back on the days where Christianity flourished.

Why can’t we have more positive groups like this buying up advertising time. I’ve been getting annoyed lately by the fact anyone can buy ad time on these public services, cos in LA all I’m seeing on the tv screens on buses are debt consolidation and get rich quick scams. Its like super late night TV and it bugs me because the people most vulnerable to these scams would be the demographics that take the bus often. But then here I’m reminded of why its OK that anyone can advertise I guess.

Are you suggesting that the British are more pliable than other cultures?

No, just that Brits appreciate understatement rather than brashness or dogma. (For example the dominant religion is CofE agnosticism rather than US-style literalism.) The “probably” is well pitched to the UK.

And how will this message be received in your growing Islamic community?

The thing is … if this message starts with ‘Probably…’ and god does nothing about it…next time the message can be “See God did nothing! That proves it!” (Or something similar)
I think the plan is for more messages (if there is money) so we should think of the whole ‘campaign’, not just the first message.

It has also the merrit of avoiding this uncertainty issue (afterall, there really is no evidence for God), and “enjoy life” has become sooooo generic and over-used, it’s lost any meaning in advertsing.

Another thing I like about this is the healthy contribution being made by all tax payers – column 4 and approaching 8K the last time I looked.

UK tax payers, if they tick the right box, increase the value of their gift by 2.82 for ever 10 GBP because the BHA has charitable status for tax purposes. Nice to think that the Stephen Greens of this world are helping to pay for the campaign. That alone makes this worth doing.

“Probably” is exactly right. If you say “certainly” the obvious retort is “prove it!” Well you can’t, so believers go smugly home and end of debate.

It’s religious dogmatists who claim certainty, and this ad challenges people to rather think about probabilities. Then the religious dogmatists will say “but we know better”, and the obvious retort is “prove it!” Well they can’t, and the tactical advantage swings to our side. By saying “probably” we are demonstrating that we are not dogmatists and are open to reasonable debate; and debate, the most corrosive substance known to faith, is what we’re really after.

‘Qualia’ are, by fallacious philosopher Chalmers’ definition, is ‘the ways things seem to us’. He misunderstands these, however, as things, not actions carried out by the brain.

Perception is a function of the sensory organs and the integrative portions of the brain; clearly, you are not familiar with the function of the parietal, occipital, and temporal lobes and the thalamus and hypothalamus. These structures are central to the interpretation of information. Memory is also a factor in interpreting these.

Intentionality is tied directly to human instincts and needs, which are driven by cognition, the limbic system, and hormones. These things have been developed for years by evolution. Are you familiar with studies about vasopressin in voles? Emotion can be sharply influenced by chemicals. It’s why psychotropic drugs work.

To return to the issue at hand, when I read the ad, oddly enough I thought the formulation “enjoy your life” was more problematic, as it might be suggestive of the kind of amoral hedonism that the religious often accuse atheists of (because we have no morality imposed on us by a giant daddy figure).

Well, as a brit I found the ‘probably’ a bit wishy washy, seeing as you have had ‘Jesus Is Lord’ type messages on buses, billboards and other places.

But thinking about it, maybe the ‘probably’ does make it friendlier…also there was a campaign for lager with the tag ‘probably’, so it might be an allusion to that..

Pete Rooke, you are an arse. I do frequently enjoy many intelligent discussions with religious people, and the discussion of ‘The God Delusion’ being provided in hotel rooms along with gideon bibles has been agreed on in principle with many religious groups. After all, it’s good to see both sides to the story, isn’t it? Or is religion that weak and ineffectual that it can’t handle a bit of free speech?

“Probably” is exactly right. If you say “certainly” the obvious retort is “prove it!” Well you can’t, so believers go smugly home and end of debate.

What bothers me about it is that god is the only non-existent entity we feel the need to qualify with “probably”. Nobody ever says there’s probably no Santa Claus, probably no Tooth Fairy, probably no Easter Bunny, etc, although none of those statements are provable. Say, “there’s no god”, though, and suddenly the degree of certainty required to make such a statement rational goes up by several orders of magnitude. Why is god in a different category? The burden of proof is on the claimers, not us.

It’s religious dogmatists who claim certainty, and this ad challenges people to rather think about probabilities. Then the religious dogmatists will say “but we know better”, and the obvious retort is “prove it!” Well they can’t, and the tactical advantage swings to our side. By saying “probably” we are demonstrating that we are not dogmatists and are open to reasonable debate; and debate, the most corrosive substance known to faith, is what we’re really after.

In that it draws attention to the idea that all knowledge is conditional, I agree: “probably” is correct. The problem is it makes it sound like there is reasonable doubt it may be so.

It’s now at close to £36,000. I really hope they can reach ten times their target.

In a way I hope so to. Many people in this city are only too happy to live there life completely unaffected by any of the great existential questions and instead muddle through, never never made to think by the largely secular media.

This campaign may well prove to be counter-productive at least in terms of proselytizing.

At the moment it just went over £36,000, which means it’s raking in nearly £4,000 per hour. Apparently it was featured on the local BBC evening news in London. This publicity is of course free and is of somewhat greater value than the signs on the buses.

Well worth a few quid, if only to annoy the deluded and with the £47,000+ presently donated they can do that for even longer now Though on a more positive note, and one of the real goals of this project, I hope it may make some people actually think.

Fair enough, though I read the comment and I found it a very odd thing to say. It almost felt like a more sciency way of saying “the lord giveth and the lord taketh away”. But yeah, I’m sure he meant well. Unlike Pete Rooke who just seems want to preach for the sake of preaching. “I’ll pray for you”

That should be in the next round of bus ads, along with “Prove that we’re not being watched over by leprechauns” and “The Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is founded on both faith and knowledge: we have faith that She is pink and we know that she is invisible” and “Horus bless you.”

Stuart (comment #156), in Copenhagen (where Carlsberg beer is actually produced), it’s advertised as “Carlsberg, probably the best beer in town” not even “country” or “world”. So it’s certainly just truth in advertising. Personally, I prefer Beck.

I found Carlsberg to be absolute rubbish as a beer, though it could just be that it’s gone foul on importing. I liked it a lot more than Heineken, though that’s not saying much. I too prefer Becks, though mostly I drink Australian Ales, Pilsners and Weissbier. Love the weissbier

NO, NO, and NO. How can you advertise atheism, yes that is exactly what it is when one places it on a bus like that and wants others to follow an imposed belief. You(PZ meyers) think it is so logical and using reason to have no religion. You act like religion is a bad influence on people. No you only hear and want to hear about the crazy religious nuts and extremists that give will give further positive credit to your belief that religion is dumb. Not everyone thinks like you, or needs to for that matter.

Atheism is not organized, its a personal choice stop trying to make it into some new major issue that it will never become. I don’t know what exactly do you want some sort of proposition on it. You are wasting your time attempting to promote Atheism as and organized effort. If people see this on a bus they will either find it funny, offensive, or just plain dumb. I would find it plain dumb, why would you spend money on it. Well i guess it doesn’t really matter religion isn’t in any danger of becoming extinct. Atheists don’t need to feel the need to separate themselves. Atheists are not being discriminated against. Just stop now, before you waste so much time on something so worthless.

how has religion been a good influence on people? how can you ask that? I want to know, you never went to church with your family when your were younger. What exactly do you think they preach in most churches. Once again you cling to the examples of religion nuts and extremists or whatever you want to call it. Religion teaches us moral values and basic guidelines to live better and better the lives around us. Ok that is not the only thing religion teaches. But apparently you don’t know that religion has been around a long time, and its teachings of moral values (for example: 10 commandments) have trickled down through time and given people guidelines to live by. Religion has so much influence in so many things you don’t even realize. A secular society wouldn’t have the influence of proper values without religion being there.

Naturally you believe that religion is only about converting. Wow, that really angers me that you would talk in an extreme like that “name one…” what is wrong with you honestly. Is your head that far up your ass you will dismiss anything to do with religion. You must thrive on the negative info adding it to your ignorant argument about why religion is so bad based on a minority of radicals who give religion a bad name. Religion has given us the guidelines of how to live righteously throughout time. It positive effects are almost everywhere.

ugh no you have got to be kidding. secular: having nothing do with religion. What can you only think in this time period. Only up until the 20th century a small amount people really start to split from religion due to advancements in science and freedom. What about the previous 20 centuries, most all of that is like everyone is religious. Laws, choices, i don’t know most everything in the world is based of religious influence.

You fucking moron. The religious hanged my ancestors in American and England.
Ever heard of the Salem witch trials? How about the Pendle Forest witches.
Death. That’s what your fucking religion brings.
Peace, hope, love? Bullshit. Death. Idiot.
Didn’t think any of us knew history past yesterday did you, jackass. *wink* Aren’t you just special.

Not at all. The role of religion won’t die in a secular society, the role of a single relgion underpinning society goes. Secularism protects the freedom of religion by not enforcing any religion onto others.

What can you only think in this time period. Only up until the 20th century a small amount people really start to split from religion due to advancements in science and freedom. What about the previous 20 centuries, most all of that is like everyone is religious.

And what does that prove? In last 100 years, we have come further in terms of human rights, securing equality for all; including the rights of those who had a different skin colour and those with vaginas.

Laws, choices, i don’t know most everything in the world is based of religious influence.

No, you have that the wrong way round. Religion is based off the rule of law, religion came after the social constructs of morality and tribal rule. There were laws in place well before organised religion was. Take religion out of the equation and you still have law, you still have morality, you still have a code of conduct people must adhere to in order to be a member of that society. Religion was a meme built on the foundational structure of society, not the other way around. These days we have advanced beyond the need for religion, it’s a folly to pretend otherwise.

of course the one pedophiliac priest represents the whole Christian religion.

“you mean aside from the useless fictions?”
useless fictions, that is obviously just your opinion if you can get over that. you act like that is such a statement that means something. The Bible which you are referring to, let’s just talk about Christianity since we both live in America and it can be safe to assume that we both know more about that particular religion than any other.

The Bible which has been around for centuries is full of useless fiction which you yourself don’t live by or have too. But you know what some people do live by these “useless fictions” and learn from them and maybe even apply them in their everyday lives. Do you think the Bible has bad intentions, it tells people to do bad things, it influences them in bad ways? No, sorry but its not written that way, and you are not religious, and neither am I, but I believe in God, who is not a “skypappy”

The Salem witch trials once again a single event represents the vast majority of everyone who practices that religion. I find it unfair for you to label every religious follower some sort of ignorant person who is not open to reason. Its not like believing in God holds them back.

Pleased to meet you, oh worshiper of Zuess.
oh, wait, you don’t worship Zeuss?
Regarding Zeus believing in him a Greek God is not being religious. what exactly are you saying there. You are adding to my point. What is Christianity the only bad religion just because you live with it. I don’t know to me it really seems like you love the bad examples that make a religion look bad and corrupted just to further your point about how you aren’t religious and are somehow smarter than people who do believe in religion.

This is an example, there are terrorists who die in the name of God. They give a bad name to Islam, a less than 5% amount of followers of that particular religion have such a huge impact on how most of the world thinks of Islam. Just like you using pedophiliac priests, salem witch trials, and that preachers preach about Hell and burning in it all the time to represent a whole following of everyone in the religion.

Stop separating yourself from people who have faith in something. They are just as smart as you are.

Moron! I’m in charge of the witch trials, not Ichthyic. He didn’t say a damned thing about them.
How many ways do you want your religious ass kicked fool?
Can’t take it that a woman can bust your chops, and beat you over the head with your scriptures?
Bring it on.
I’ll cast a spell on your monkey ass that will drop your dick into the dirt. Let’s go sissy.

of course the one pedophiliac priest represents the whole Christian religion.

not the reason I brought it up. If you recall, you were the one who brought up the issue of the rampant influence of religion. The head of the largest evangelical church in america (Ted Haggard = head of a church that is 30 million strong), was a crack abuser and had sex with gay prostitutes.

great influence religion had on HIM, eh?

and the fact that I’m still waiting for you to tell me what religion has to offer of a positive nature in and of itself, tells me what influence the brainwashing has had on you.

useless fictions, that is obviously just your opinion if you can get over that.

how can one “get over” the fact that there are not now, nor have there ever been any deities? OF WHAT USE IS A FLYING UNICORN?

as to why you don’t worship Zeuss…

oh, I see:

Regarding Zeus believing in him a Greek God is not being religious.

it’s not xianity, so it’s not a religion. I’d bet the early greeks and romans would have taken exception to your opinion.

ROFLMAO.

Stop separating yourself from people who have faith in something. They are just as smart as you are.

I hope you aren’t including yourself in that?

Just like you using pedophiliac priests, salem witch trials, and that preachers preach about Hell and burning in it all the time to represent a whole following of everyone in the religion.

and so you aren’t responsible even though it’s obvious your religious thinking generates these things?

convenient.

Ok, I waited patiently enough for you to present even ONE thing that religion, in and of itself (again, that means it CAN’T be accomplished by any other method), actually improves.

you failed to do so, and instead spouted a ream of gibberish.

do you even get that?
I guess not.

…and you speak as if i have MY head wedged?

here’s your word for the day:

psychological projection.

look it up.

you’re too far gone to have a conversation with, but thankyou for being another datapoint in my “religion is bad for your brain” database.

I think at this point, you’re a nice, fat fish for someone else to play with.

“The head of the largest evangelical church in america (Ted Haggard = head of a church that is 30 million strong), was a crack abuser and had sex with gay prostitutes.”

Of course religion is to blame for that. But thats not what you are saying you are saying that religion did not save him from doing those things. Ok well that is up to him he is a horrible Christian then. It comes down to the individual to make the right choices about how they practice and apply their faith.

Regarding the positive influences of religion. I was assuming they are too obvious to point out. For one Ben Franklin said to live like Jesus. So most of the New Testament tells us how to live and act like Jesus. The ten commandments is another big one. The story of Job, in keeping your faith.

I am not about to deny certain individuals have taken advantage of religion and used it wrongfully. And if religion wasn’t there in the first place they would not have something to take advantage of. But that isn’t right or reasonable to go by that assumption. Religion is not to blame for anything, the individuals choice’s he or she made takes the blame.

I truly believe a small minority that follows a religion doesn’t represent the religion and whether its teachings are reasonable or right.

Faith is hardly an endearing trait of religious belief, and given the way it’s used, it’s one of the more negative aspects of religion. If you want to make a good argument, talk about communal work, about bringing the community together, about the functional aspects that go beyond the relationship between God and man. For those are the aspects that have a place in the future of society. Faith just means that people will believe without evidence on ideas that are manifestly untrue.

My problem with religion starts with the invisible non provable sky daddy. I’ve seen fantasy writers come up with better plots. Then add a book written by petty, insecure, and fallible people and claim it was inspired by the invisible non provable sky daddy and is totally true. What a way to remove any attempt to truly inspect and critic the writings. Then they have the nerve to try to force everyone else around to also worship their invisible non provable sky daddyTM. I stopped believing because when the whole package was looked at critically, it didn’t add up to anything logical. Then the people who really believed kept acting badly. Not a good inducement to believe. To paraphrase Desi, religion, you have some spainin’ to do.

I don’t think anyone here would say that the bible is void of anything good, practical or inspiring; of course there are those elements to the text. But in the same pages lie many cruel, injust, condemnable, intolerant acts that have no place in modern society. While we see many tolerant moderate Christians (which I’m all in favour of), there are still those who use the more deplorable parts of the bible to justify their own intolerance and hate. The homosexual issue is almost exclusively divided down religious lines, while there is still some homophobia in the general community, the most passionate opponents of gay rights are bible bashers – citing not only the old testament but the new testament as well to justify their intolerance. Then there’s the threat of hell, the passive aggressive condemnation of another’s actions and justification again on intolerance.

If you want to talk about the good of religion and the stories people derive from the holy source, then you can’t ignore the bad – which there most certainly is. Lashing out at secularism is missing the point of secularism – this is the ideal that will protect the freedom of religion. This will not mean that the Nazarene church will have the power to impose it’s will over all society, it’s a way to ensure the basic rights of all people including the right to believe. Where do people get the idea that secularism is a bad thing?

i understand that God has to be tangible before you can believe in him. but then faith wouldn’t exist. Look its a spiritual, cultural tradition, I don’t go to church i would find it a waste of time. I just don’t want to deny that there is a God. I don’t know, he doesn’t do anything for me and doesn’t have too.

Just I think Nerd of Redhead needs to realize that constantly calling him a sky daddy and demanding proof of his existence isn’t going to further any argument. There’s faith for a reason. Thanks Ichthyic, I feel i learned a few things from you. I gotta sleep now

Well to some the story of Job interprets as believing in something, perseverance.

And to others, the take-home message of Job is to keep your head down and your mouth shut because you won’t be able to understand what God throws at you — or why. Oh, and God will strip away everything you ever cared about on a whim, or a bet, a fucking wager with some other divinity — and then God will give it all back, as if new loved ones can be troweled in to fill the wounds left by the old.

My wife just emailed me to say that we’ve donated a tenner. It figures, of course–one group funds adverts that say “You’re going to HELL!”, another funds adverts that say “No actually, you aren’t. Probably.” Which one is being offensive?

I agree, though, that bendybi are an abomination unto Nuggan. Bring back the Routemaster!

As a Londoner myself, I am both very happy and amused by this scheme of Dawkins’. I was getting pretty sick of all the adverts on buses and tubes advertising Christianity and anything to counter this is greatly appreciated. What kind of religion can it be when you have to start advertising anyway? Inanity countered by rationality…almost makes me proud to be English again. Now if Dawkins could do something similar about calamity Brown…

I was just reminded of the time I saw a learner bus in London (they’re a different colour and have ‘L’ plates plastered over them) go by clearly displaying the route number ‘666’. Which I thought was a nice touch.

of course the one pedophiliac priest represents the whole Christian religion.

And of course the entire church with an official policy of shielding pedophile priests from justice, going back decades, maybe even centuries? Well, that couldn’t possibly reflect on the single largest chrisitan denomination in any way. No, no, just because the church does everything in its power to protect pedophiles, and nothing whatsoever to protect the victims, that couldn’t POSSIBLY mean the church might be doing anything even slightly wrong. In case you can’t tell, that was sarcasm.

More death-cult minimization of human suffering:

The Salem witch trials once again a single event represents the vast majority of everyone who practices that religion.

Yeah, the Salem Witch Trials were just an isolated incident. And all those other witch hunts for centuries throughout Europe, each one also an isolated incident. Yep, all those tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people tortured, murdered, their property stolen, their families disgraced, all in the name of god, well there’s no connection between those incidents at all. There couldn’t possibly be any general conclusion to be drawn from it all. Each and every time innocent people have been brutally murdered for religious reasons, with exactly the same justification, well all those incidents are completely unrelated. No connection at all. Even to consider the possibility that there might be makes baby Jebus cry. In case you can’t tell, that was sarcasm.

The death-cultist whines:

I find it unfair for you to label every religious follower some sort of ignorant person who is not open to reason. Its not like believing in God holds them back.

Well, if the shoe fits…

This is why believers are thought of as delusional and in denial. Because you are. You refuse to accept the facts right in front of you. The truth is, your religion has been torturing and murdering people for thousands of years. These were NOT isolated incidents. This was NOT the work of a few “bad apples”. These actions were OFFICIAL church policy, and still remain so in some cases.

The death-cultist proves he can’t read his own bible:

Do you think the Bible has bad intentions, it tells people to do bad things, it influences them in bad ways? No, sorry but its not written that way

Once again, blatant denial. The Bible depicts god explicitly commanding genocide, and his followers carrying it out, and does so in a positive light. This same bible demands the murder of homosexuals, nonbelievers, “witches”, even disobedient children. It’s right there in the text of your supposedly “holy” book. The fact that you’ve gotten very good at pretending such passages don’t exist doesn’t make them go away.

redf doesn’t even know what religon is:

and you are not religious, and neither am I, but I believe in God, who is not a “skypappy”

Now you’re in denial about the meaning of words! Belief in god is one of the defining characteristics of religion! If you can’t even communicate in intelligible English, what possible reason is there for anyone to bother listening to you?

Of course, everyone has noticed that in all the reams of bullshit you’ve spewed here, you have yet to answer the original question. As a reminder, here’s the question you’re hiding from:

name one positive value of religion that couldn’t exist in an entirely secular social organization.

Just name ONE positive value of religion that is actually unique to religion. Just ONE. Name one thing that religion does that actually provides some benefit, a benefit that can’t be gotten otherwise. If relgion is so wonderful and important, this should be easy. Why, then, have you so totally FAILED at it? Why, in all this garbage and whining, have you been completely unable to show even ONE legitimate benefit for religion?

redf @ #192:

i understand that God has to be tangible before you can believe in him.

Strawman. All we need is a single speck of evidence. Something even you know you are utterly incapable of providing.

but then faith wouldn’t exist.

And why is that a bad thing? What is the advantage to believing in things that aren’t real? Why is it considered a virtue to believe things that are totally unsupported by evidence? Where did the human race get this idea that the facts should have no bearing whatsoever on what you believe?

Look its a spiritual, cultural tradition

So was slavery. So was human sacrifice. So IS racism, even today, in large parts of this very country. And in some cultures, female genital mutilation and arranged marriages. Just because it’s traditional doesn’t mean it’s good. It’s simply insane to keep doing something for no other reason than that it’s the way it’s been done in the past. The appeal to tradition is simply an excuse to avoid looking at the real-world effects of your actions.
In the words of Mark Twain Often, the less there is to justify a traditional custom, the harder it is to get rid of it.

redf’s core whine:

I just don’t want to deny that there is a God.

Who’s asking you to? We’re asking you to name a single unique benefit from religion. You’ve utterly failed to do this. We’re asking you to provide a shred of evidence that your god actually exists. You’ve utterly failed to do this.
No one’s asking you to deny your god, they’re asking you to support your claims. You have utterly failed in this. Either name a benefit of religion, or admit that there aren’t any. Either show the evidence for your god, or admit that there isn’t any. You’re the one who sees believing without evidence as a virtue, so admitting that nothing you’ve said is supported by any evidence isn’t the same as denying your imaginary god.

redf admits there might as well be no god:

I don’t know, he doesn’t do anything for me and doesn’t have too.

So, your god does not do anything for you at all, you freely admit this, and this fact does not diminish your faith in the least. A god that does nothing, goes nowhere, speaks to no one, leaves not the slightest trace of its existence, has no effect on the universe whatsoever, doesn’t differ in any meaningful way from a god that doesn’t exist. Your god is absolutely indistinguishable from no god at all.

redf’s final, desperate pleading for relevance:

There’s faith for a reason.

Yes, to bilk the gullible. To promote credulity and obedience to traditional authority, and avoid that pesky issue of evidence. Because as long as you can get people to follow you based on faith, you’ll have all the money and power you can squeeze out of them, an excuse to get around any law, willing sex slaves and assassins and suicide bombers, even generations of children offered up on the altar for whatever use your whim dictates. But the instant your followers start asking for evidence, the whole house of cards comes crashing down.

Congratulations for British atheists, who prove their courage. Will those buses not be preferential targets for bombings?? If my country (Brazil) allowed such public campaigns regarding religion, it would almost literally raise hell among religious people. The buses would not remain intact at all.

Congratulations for British atheists, who prove their courage. Will those buses not be preferential targets for bombings?? If my country (Brazil) allowed such public campaigns regarding religion, it would almost literally raise hell among religious people. The buses would not remain intact at all.

You believe what you believe. I respect that. I’ll believe what I want to believe, and I’d like you to respect that in turn. Even if what I believe differs from what you believe. In fact, I don’t even intend to tell you what I believe!

I don’t even care if you get this, I just looked at this page right now to look if any more responses from last night, and i find yours…

What the hell first off, I can’t be agnostic. And I am sure you have a multitude of reasons for why being agnostic is dumb, because you will assume all this stuff about my beliefs.

And I am a troll and death cultist, just because I seem to be the one guy on this post who actually disagrees with what PZ meyers wrote. Just shut the fuck up honestly. Jackass, pick apart every single one of my sentences. You know what you are the one who isn’t open and reasonable, you will assume the absolute worst about what religion has to offer. I don’t know what world you live where you honestly think you can compare religion to slavery. And don’t say “our world” to what world do you live in.

And I am a troll and death cultist, just because I seem to be the one guy on this post who actually disagrees with what PZ meyers wrote.

Wrong. Just check out Salt. Oh, wait, you need to think yourself the brave man standing up to the mindless atheist horde. If you took some fucking time to read, you would find others who disagree with Myers.

And that is “M-Y-E-R-S”, not “M-E-Y-E-R-R”. Funny thing, it is usually trolls who misspell PZ’s name.

A quick predition – it will take less than a week for a Muslim or evangelical bus driver to claim ‘victimisation’ when they get suspended for refusing to drive a bus with one of these ads on the side.

If any muslim does try that on, they should have their case thrown out (and get sacked) for dishonesty if they didn’t already refuse to drive any buses carrying adverts for interest-based banking and various other things which are against their religion (ie any pictures at all if truly fundy).

Why don’t YOU shut the hell up? You’re the one who has utterly failed to support any of your idiotic claims with even the slightest speck of evidence.

What the hell first off, I can’t be agnostic. And I am sure you have a multitude of reasons for why being agnostic is dumb, because you will assume all this stuff about my beliefs.

You never claimed to be agnostic. You whined about the virtues of faith, whined about not wanting to have to deny god, babbled about the benefits of religion (not one of which you have managed to name), and tossed in a thinly-veiled repeat of the “atheists have no morals” lie. These do not look like the actions of an agnostic, more like those of a sociopathic religious apologist. An agnostic is as a rule someone who thinks the question of the existence of a god is unknowable. This really doesn’t fit well with your whining about “denying god”. Maybe you could actually look at the definition of the word, that might be a new thing for you:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

redf the death-cultist troll:

And I am a troll and death cultist, just because I seem to be the one guy on this post who actually disagrees with what PZ meyers wrote.

“Death-cultist troll” is basically a shorthand for someone who has no interest in honest discussion, just wants to babble and spew religious bullshit. Like you. You came here with a self-inflicted case of the vapors over advertising atheism, babbling about the virtues of religion (and again, there’s that question you’re still hiding from), frantically trying to sweep every failure of religion under the rug.

Not to mention that you can’t even spell the name of the guy who writes this blog correctly, even when it’s ON THE FUCKING PAGE!

redf:

Just shut the fuck up honestly.

You first. ðŸ˜›

redf:

Jackass, pick apart every single one of my sentences.

I notice that while you enjoy whining about having your bullshit exposed as such, you haven’t made any attempt at all to actually defend or support anything you’ve said. If you think I’m wrong in my criticism of your idiocy, you could point out where. You haven’t even tried to do this.

redf:

You know what you are the one who isn’t open and reasonable, you will assume the absolute worst about what religion has to offer.

What should I be open to? You’ve never even bothered offering the slightest shred of evidence to support any of your claims. How is it reasonable to accept your bullshit without any evidence at all?

Oh, and what was it again that religion has to offer? Do you remember Ichthyic’s question, way back at #166? The one you have utterly failed to answer in all this time? Here, I’ll repeat it for you YET AGAIN:

name one positive value of religion that couldn’t exist in an entirely secular social organization.

You see, you still haven’t answered that. Just one thing religion does that’s actually beneficial, and that wouldn’t happen in the abscence of religion. If religion has all these wonderful benefits you seem to think it does, it shouldn’t be hard for you to name just ONE. And yet you have utterly failed to do so.

redf:

I don’t know what world you live where you honestly think you can compare religion to slavery.

The real world. The same world where the allegedly holy book of the largest religion contains the following:

Leviticus 25:44-46:

Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Ephisians 6:5:

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

And those aren’t the only biblical endorsements of slavery. Through much of American history, christian preachers defended slavery and racism on bibilical grounds. Religion has defended slavery for thousands of years. The Greeks, the Romans, the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, all had slaves, and their gods made no objection. To this day, slavery is stil practiced, mostly in backward religious areas of the world (Middle Eastern countries mostly come to mind). Fundamentalist men (of multiple faiths) hold their wives and children in a state of virtual slavery, citing their religon as justification for this despicable practice. And yet you refuse to see any connection at all between religion and slavery. I’m guessing you don’t live in the real world, nor have you apparently ever visited it.

You are in denial. Religion enables that denial. Religion celebrates that denial. For centuries, religion has provided justification for atrocity, intolerance, and insanity. What good has religion done that could make up for all this? What benefit is there to religion, that can’t be gotten without all this madness? You were asked that question a day and a half ago. You have utterly failed to answer it. In fact, neither you nor any other apologist for religion has really even tried. You hide from the question, hide from the facts, and repeat the same lies you’ve been spoon-fed since childhood.

How long must we suffer the tyranny of organised atheism? How much more innocent blood must be spilt before people rise up and slaughter their oppressors?

What oppressors? Oh, yeah, the ones that exist only in your delusions.

Since it’s obvious that your religous dogma has driven you insane, you may not be able to grasp this fact, but THERE IS NO “TYRRANY OF ORGANIZED ATHEISM!” You are NOT “suffering” anything! The persecution you whine about exists only in your own delusions. YOU are the one explicitly defending the murder of countless innocent people in the name of your imaginary god.

How long must we suffer the tyranny of organised atheism?– Piltdown Scumbag

There are times when one must just stand amazed and aghast: the extent of disconnection from reality which must lie behind such absurd claims. What “tyranny” is that, Scumbag? If you live in North Korea, or live in China and have converted to Falun Gong, you can reasonably claim to be a religious believer persecuted by “organised atheism”, at least in the weak sense of “an organised body professing an atheist ideology”. Elsewhere, religious persecution is overwhelmingly practised by religious believers, as has been the case overwhelmingly through history.

There are times when one must just stand amazed and aghast: the extent of disconnection from reality which must lie behind such absurd claims. What “tyranny” is that, Scumbag? If you live in North Korea, or live in China and have converted to Falun Gong, you can reasonably claim to be a religious believer persecuted by “organised atheism”, at least in the weak sense of “an organised body professing an atheist ideology”. Elsewhere, religious persecution is overwhelmingly practised by religious believers, as has been the case overwhelmingly through history.

And even then it is less about the religion and more about Totalitarian governments keeping down any organizations that may pose a threat to their control.

How long must we suffer the tyranny of organised atheism? How much more innocent blood must be spilt before people rise up and slaughter their oppressors?

I’ve been saying the same thing about stupid people like yourself, Piltdown.

By the way, we know you think you’re clever by referencing the Piltdown skull in your handle, but it’s a pretty safe bet you haven’t a fucking clue as to what the hoax signified. The Piltdown skull was that of anatomically modern human with the jaw of a orangutan, which was thought at the time to represent an intermediate step in hominin evolution. You see, at the time it was thought that the first major ‘progress’ the human species made was in developing modern, large brains, with which we ‘decided’ to become bipedal, use tools, etc. to ‘better’ our condition, a sort of pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps, as it were. The impetus for such thinking was not scientific in nature, but religious in origin: it comes directly from the scala naturae in which humans are posited as supreme over all other forms of life, second only to God.

That’s not to say that those that bought into the Piltdown hoax were poor scientists or otherwise stupid, even if some of them did show good ol’ fashioned Christian projection in wanting the skull to be genuine. At the time, there was a relative dearth of hominin fossils, and so the true course of our evolution was considerably contentious and murky.

However, even at the time, there were many that did question the ersatz skull. These included those that believed, based on the available evidence at the time, that increased cranial capacity was one of the last features to develop in modern humans, an hypothesis which mounting evidence has now shown to be true.

So in fact, the Piltdown hoax is not the great blow to science and the study of evolution that morons like yourself believe it to be. Further, the fact that it took 40 years to determine that it was a hoax only serves to underscore the non-existence of the Great Scientific Conspiracy? you and your fellow persecution-complexers like to imagine lurking in your closets: a dogmatic hegemony wouldn’t have criticised, examined, poked, and prodded the skull for forty years to determine its legitimacy.

Anyway, if you’d like to one day cease being a total fucking clueless twit, at least with regard to hominin evolution, I recommend The Human Career by Richard Klein (now in its second edition, printed in 1999–you might want to wait for the third edition which will include the substantial findings from the last decade of palaeoanthropology), or, if you’re more of a biography and history of science type of person any of the books by Richard Leakey.

If hoaxes are truly your thing, why not click on the link in my name to read about the substantial number of hoaxes perpetrated by good, honest Christian folks like yourself?

Generation after generation??? Wow – they must have been doing something wrong. Perhaps they were actually witches! – Piltdown Scumbag

Who lives up to his handle with a magnificent example of blame-the-victim.

And you’ve just provided a magnificent example of another characteristic liberal tic – the unquestioning assumption that all ‘victims’, everywhere, are guiltless.

I daresay many of the ‘witches’ executed by the Protestant rebels were entirely innocent. But to imagine witchcraft has no basis in reality is to show one’s ignorance. Witches were, and are, a reality. What about Gilles de Rais or Catherine Deshayes, aka La Voisin? What about Jack Parsons or Ted Paisnel? Or Michel Bertiaux?

Like those Jews, eh, Pilty? If you Catholics have persecuted them for 1700 years, they must deserve it, eh? You filth.

Allow me the indulgence of quoting what I said about the subject on the RDF:

… no one is denying Jews were frequently victims of mob violence in Christian society, notably during the Crusades and the extreme social trauma of the 14th-century Black Death. I’m not sure there’s much difference there from pre-Christian or post-Christian society. But I do know medieval ecclesiastical authorities often acted to protect the Jews on such occasions, for example suppressing the sect of Flagellants (who incited anti-Jewish violence) and condemning the so-called “blood libel” (“Die Päpstlichen Bullen über die Blutbeschuldigung,” Berlin, 1893, and Munich (Aug. Schupp), 1900, contains the bulls of Innocent IV, Gregory X, Martin V, Paul III, and the opinion of Lorenzo Ganganelli (later Clement XIV). Many popes have either directly or indirectly condemned the blood accusation; no pope has ever sanctioned it.” – Jewish Encyclopedia).

Whereas the Jews are made to the image of God, and a remnant of them will one day be saved, and whereas they have sought our protection: following in the footsteps of our predecessors We command that they be not molested in their synagogues; that their laws, rights and customs be not assailed; that they be not baptized by force, constrained to observe Christian festivals, nor to wear new badges, and that they be not hindered in their business relations with Christians. – Pope Martin V, Declaration on the Protection of the Jews.

Medieval Europe was no Christian utopia and often failed to act according to the Gospels, not least in its treatment of the Jews. But just to set things in their full historical context, one might want to consider the following:

How did the Church’s first martyr St Stephen die?

What was Saul of Tarsus up to before he saw the light?

What happened to those Christians who refused to support the false messiah Bar Kochba?

Did many Jews distinguish themselves by sheltering Christians from their Roman persecutors?

Oh, and here’s an interesting historical event that seems to have conveniently slipped down the memory hole. You see, there are two sides to every story.

Does any of this excuse later mistreatment of the Jews by Christians? Of course it doesn’t. But it does illustrate that the image of the Jew as always and everywhere the powerless victim of Christian brutality is a distorted and one-sided one.

Witches were, and are, a reality. What about Gilles de Rais or Catherine Deshayes, aka La Voisin? What about Jack Parsons or Ted Paisnel? Or Michel Bertiaux?

Or Brownian? or Rev. BDC? or any of the Molly winners here? Just how do you think we scored all those votes anyway? Campaigning? Prayer?

No, my friends, through witchcraft, pure and simple. And thanks to modern science, I no longer have to messy my hands with newts’ eyes and symbolic Devile’s Congresses. I cast my hexes by coding them in SAS:

Do you mean witches casting spells type of witches, witches practicing nature related religions like Wicca types of witches or do you mean really mean women who won’t give you the time of day types of witches?

Does any of this excuse later mistreatment of the Jews by Christians? Of course it doesn’t. But it does illustrate that the image of the Jew as always and everywhere the powerless victim of Christian brutality is a distorted and one-sided one.

It also illustrates that Christianity has no more usefulness in enforcing, ensuring, or even coaxing ‘moral’ behaviour out of its followers than plastic Slinkies do the kids who play with them.

Hey Piltdown Man! What do you call a variable that is not correlated with any measurable outcome, is itself undetectable in any reliable way, and likely doesn’t actually exist?

Piltdown Man, have you ever actually studied the transcripts from any of the witch trials? Do you have any clue of the cruelty that was used to torture those poor people? How do you defend that? – Patricia

He doesn’t just defend it, he revels in it. The thought of righteously torturing women really gets him off!

Piltdown Man, have you ever actually studied the transcripts from any of the witch trials? Do you have any clue of the cruelty that was used to torture those poor people? How do you defend that?

He defends it because he worships cruelty. There is no room in his diseased mind for compassion. It’s all filled up with delusions about the “glory” of a nonexistent devil*.

Piltdown Man, your god is nothing more than a figment of your imagination. But if such a being actually existed, if there really were such a sickening invisible sky-tyrant who rejoices at the slaughter of innocents, it would be the duty of all good people to OPPOSE such evil.

Your god does not exist, but it wouldn’t be worthy of worship even if it did.

*I use the term “devil” in the Dungeons & Dragons sense, meaning an extraplanar being of alignment Lawful Evil, tyrranical, cruel, manipulative, and alien to the material plane. This is distinct from a “demon”, which is Chaotic Evil, capricious and randomly destructive. Since Piltdown Scumbag seems to be a big fan of organized oppression and mass murder, LE seems fitting.

Pilty, still quoting religious texts without proving your imaginary god or proving that the scriptures are divinely inspired (very hard to do without a god). Get your priorities straight. First prove your god with physical evidence, then prove your scriptures, and then, and only then, quote church doctrine. Otherwise, you just look stupid.

Nice try, but there’s an unbridgeable semantic chasm between ‘God’ and ‘God-like despot’.

Since “God” does not speak for himself (and indeed, almost certainly does not exist), the “chasm” is actually a hairline crack.

Stalin, Mao et al were ATHEISTS, megalomaniac ones.

Megalomania being the key trait, not atheism.

Nor can you even claim that their atheism was incidental to their murderous ideology.

I most certainly can indeed argue that atheism was utterly incidental to their respective ideologies: If they had me before their guns, and I said “I am an atheist, but I utterly reject and oppose this murder, theft, and destruction that you commit for the sake of Bolshevism/Maoism/agrarian collectivism/whateverism”, they would not have hesitated to kill me.

Citing Wikipedia:

The Khmer Rouge tried to impose the concept of “Year Zero” and targeted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Western-educated intellectuals, educated people in general, people who had contact with Western countries or with Vietnam, the crippled and lame, and the ethnic Chinese, Laotians and Vietnamese.

Nothing about sparing atheists qua atheists in there. As a nerd, I most certainly would have been murdered as a “Western-educated intellectual” or “educated person in general”.

The same goes for Chinese Maoism and Stalinist Bolshevism: There, too, adherence to the group and the ideology was far more important than belief in God. Although of course, it was more complex and political than that:

Using voluminous archival records that are carefully read and analyzed, she [Tatiana A. Chumachenko, author of Church and State in Soviet Russia] redraws the map of personal and institutional relationships between the Orthodox Church and the Soviet government. This history becomes a story filled with personal sacrifices and petty grievances, genuine patriotism and political betrayal. Communists and church leaders collaborated with one another to advance their own agendas. Secret policemen persistently argued for more churches to be opened, while Orthodox bishops exchanged greetings and gifts with high-ranking government officials. Members of both groups advanced their causes and became victims when the political winds shifted.

Since the Orthodox are schismatics, I have no idea of anything they do matters to you. You never did answer my questions about that…

How long must we suffer the tyranny of organised atheism? How much more innocent blood must be spilt before people rise up and slaughter their oppressors?

When you write “atheism”, I’m pretty sure that you actually mean “non-Catholicism”. You denigrate the mass-murderers of the 20th century while simultaneously bloodlusting for a Catholic-led genocide of your own…

Do you have your uniform designed yet? Have you put much thought into how you’re going to kill non-Catholics en masse? Or is the ancient Catholic tradition of live cremation good enough for you?

But it does illustrate that the image of the Jew as always and everywhere the powerless victim of Christian brutality is a distorted and one-sided one.

Actually, it demonstrates sadly that when one religious faction gains power, it turns on those religious factions that held power, and are now out of power.

Just as you long for Catholicism to regain power, and so the Church can get back to slaughtering everyone who is not Catholic.

Communists and church leaders collaborated with one another to advance their own agendas. Secret policemen persistently argued for more churches to be opened, while Orthodox bishops exchanged greetings and gifts with high-ranking government officials.

I’m totally going to use that the next time somebody insists that atheistic scientists collaborate with “moderate Christian leaders” to fight creationism. You know who else collaborated with church leaders? Stalin and his secret police, that’s who!

Pilty, You’ve finally succeeded in making me so damned mad I had to go outside and walk around clucking at my chickens.
Until you actually know something about witches shut up.
This months FFRF newspaper has a pretty decent article about it. Don’t worry, there’s plenty of torture.

“*I use the term “devil” in the Dungeons & Dragons sense, meaning an extraplanar being of alignment Lawful Evil, tyrranical, cruel, manipulative, and alien to the material plane.”
Forget Jesus, all you need to beat Satan is a d12 and a high-leveled Paladin.

Forget Jesus, all you need to beat Satan is a d12 and a high-leveled Paladin.

Nah, try a Ranger with some good favored enemy choices, a couple well-enchanted weapons, maybe a few levels of Rogue or an interesting prestige class. And just for bonus points, start with the most screwed-up racial background you can find. ðŸ˜›

Witches were, and are, a reality. What about Gilles de Rais or Catherine Deshayes, aka La Voisin? What about Jack Parsons or Ted Paisnel? Or Michel Bertiaux?

Or Jesus of Nazareth?

You never did respond to my argument that if demons are real, there is nothing to prevent a particularly powerful demon from either possessing someone and claiming to be the son of God, or helping someone claim to be the son of God.

The secular response is: Anyone can call themselves a witch. Anyone can claim to be able to do magic (and some of the crazier people kill in order to perform what they claim is magic).

But if magic actually really worked, it would be demonstrated by real, verifiable evidence. It hasn’t been, so it’s almost certainly all fake.

Hearing you guys talk about D&D almost makes me wish my DM wasn’t such a miser that we never got anything beyond a generic +1 dagger or longsword at the end of our modules. Hell, in 6 years of play with up to 14 players at a time I don’t think I ever saw an actual character make it to Level 5.

Temple of Elemental Evil? We never made it past the Foyer of Tangential Disgruntledness.

Hearing you guys talk about D&D almost makes me wish my DM wasn’t such a miser that we never got anything beyond a generic +1 dagger or longsword at the end of our modules. Hell, in 6 years of play with up to 14 players at a time I don’t think I ever saw an actual character make it to Level 5.

My D&D buddies are crazy. Last campaign, I played a ranger and was just waiting for an opportunity to cast Resist Energy on myself and SET MYSELF ON FIRE as a way to deal with swarm enemies. Then there was the time the sorcerer stole a magic orb by setting up an Immovable Rod in front of the golem guarding it, casting Mage Hand, and running like hell.

And now I’m DMing. The party just found a greatsword, and know it’s a bane weapon, but don’t know what kind. And the fighter has an axe that can cleave and cast scrolls, which given the last batch of loot will allow him to summon, of all things, a fiendish cephalopod. Strangely, that last sentence seems to put this post on-topic again.

I’ve never read the Hammer of the Witches, but I’ve heard from some of my witchy lesbian friends that it is absolutely horrifying.
The transcripts for the Salem witch trials are on line and I’ve read most of them, awful.

Piltdown Man, the whole point of my remark is that I value the opinions of my friends, and obviously I was practicing witchcraft with them or how else would I know they are witches. The thought of them being tortured or hanged is dreadful.

The translator, Montague Somers, is an interesting figure in his own right, but let’s just say for present purposes that in terms of competence, his version is amateurish. He clearly didn’t use the oldest edition, he garbles the many references to earlier authorities, and he not infrequently guesses when he doesn’t understand something. Also, he writes in a crabbed, old-fashioned style that I think borders on the incomprehensible at times. Finally, he adopts the perspective of curmudgeonly Catholic from the Middle Ages who entirely believes in the view laid out in the work. In his history of witchcraft from the post-First World War period he equates Bolshevism and feminism (the main ills of his own world) with medieval witchcraft. This sort of thing is amusing, but not scholarship.

I’m sure that the whole “curmudgeonly Catholic from the Middle Ages who entirely believes in the view laid out in the work” is exactly why Pilt likes it.

Pilty, you better shut up about witches. Some of us just might become so upset, we will use our powers (On loan from Satan!{And wouldn’t you want to know how we got them}) to track you down through the intertubes. Because the intertubes is not really the result of technology. It is witchcraft. And we can find you.

And then Pilty, we have ways of making body parts straight! Oh, the fun to be had corrupting a righteous man!

Summers was a member of the Order of Chaeronea, a secret society for homosexuals founded in 1897 by George Ives, which was named after the location of the battle where the Sacred Band of Thebes was finally annihilated in 338 BC.

Too funny!

Order of Chaeronea, also from Wikipedia:

The Order of Chaeronea was a secret society for the cultivation of a homosexual moral, ethical, cutural and spiritual ethos.

The reason this is so ironically hilarious is that Pilt was so adamant that gays with a secret agenda had infiltrated the priesthood (“the lavender mafia” ), thus leading to the pedophilia scandals. Yes, he’s so very wrong in so many ways, but here he is recommending something from an actual homosexual with a secret agenda…

Nor can you even claim that their atheism was incidental to their murderous ideology. They killed in the name of an inherently atheist system.
blockquote>

PM, you use the term ‘semantic chasm'; you do realise that there’s a similar gap between ‘atheist’ and ‘antitheist’, don’t you? By killing people for their religious beliefs, the people you mentioned are the latter, whether or not they were the former.

Pilt isn’t just a Catholic, he’s a hard-core, hard-right Catholic who thinks the Pope is a weak liberal, Vatican II was a terrible liberal mistake, and the Church needs to go back to setting people on fire.

Owlmirror, in other words, Pilty is a batshit insane catolick fundamentalist. We need to hold a reformation in his honor. Time to desecrate crackers until he goes away. Lets see, I have Ritz, saltine, and oyster on hand. The Redhead might have some savories stashed away. And we do have some catolick relatives on the outs with the established church who might be willing to do us a favor……

Pass the popcorn. We finally found a Troll that’s almost worth slaying. (NOT for the 845 XP, mind you, but for the sheer entertainment value.)

Since today’s special friend doesn’t realize he’s off the table and into someone’s pint of lager, there’s probably no harm in smacking him down with a verbal shovel. Certainly reason and common sense make no impact. Perhaps we should put him in a giant mason jar next to the Rookester and let them duke it out?

Let’s face it: the lad needs help which (of course) he will not seek because the demons will get him if he admits to anything that might possibly be considered mortal weakness or failing.

I’d quote Nanny Ogg and Granny Weatherwax, but there’s no point wasting good Discworld lines on the likes of this Epic Fail of a one-note Johnny.

‘semantic chasm'; you do realise that there’s a similar gap between ‘atheist’ and ‘antitheist’, don’t you? By killing people for their religious beliefs, the people you mentioned are the latter, whether or not they were the former.

I’m unwilling to concede even that much semantic grace to Pilt’s vindictive and hypocritical accusations. The term “antitheist” might well also characterize someone who is opposed to the idea of God, yet strongly affirms a secular humanist ethos.

No, what his list of monsters have in common is that they were all anti-intellectual, anti-human, anti-liberal, anti-rational, anti-empirical. In their fanaticism, they are far more like the very worst adherents of religions. It’s the willingness to torture and kill that defines them as monsters, not the underlying cause they claim to defend.

The Khmer Rouge said “To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss.” Abbe Amalric said “Kill them all. God will know his own.” It’s the same underlying murderous foulness just wearing a different skin.

Pilt isn’t just a Catholic, he’s a hard-core, hard-right Catholic who thinks the Pope is a weak liberal, Vatican II was a terrible liberal mistake, and the Church needs to go back to setting people on fire.

Pilty has still given be the best laugh I’ve ever had from a believer, when he said he believes in demonic possession I nearly passed out from laughing so hard. All you have to do is take a batshit insane concept as a paramater for reality and hilarity will follow.

It probably wouldn’t be a bad guess that Pilty is into S&M. Maybe he’s just in denial and blaming his thoughts on demonic possession. But I’m with Pilty on this, chicks in nun costumes are freaking hot!

Re: the Piltdown fossil, if anyone is interested. ABC (Aust) Radio National Science Show had a story on the Piltdown fossil a several years ago. According to Robyn Williams (the host), the key problem that prevented it being identified as a hoax right off, was that the curator of the museum that was given responsibility for preservation and storage, was a man obsessed with the safety of his fossil collection and in order to prevent accidental damage, loss or theft, made it a policy that a copy of all fossils were made (of plaster) for examination and the original was carefully locked away safe. So all the initial investigators saw was the plaster model. It wasn’t until some time after his retirement, that the new curator made the original fossils available to the scientists on request. One of the first scientists who saw the original fossil raised the alarm, leading to an indepth investigation. They never proved who was responsible, but there was a definite suspect, but I can’t remember his name. If I remember right, it was thought to be some sort of revenge prank.

Pilty, you better shut up about witches. Some of us just might become so upset, we will use our powers (On loan from Satan!{And wouldn’t you want to know how we got them}) to track you down through the intertubes. Because the intertubes is not really the result of technology. It is witchcraft. And we can find you.

And then Pilty, we have ways of making body parts straight! Oh, the fun to be had corrupting a righteous man!

Katkinkate – It is widely believed in archaeological circles that Charles Dawson was the forger who produced Piltdown man. It is, perhaps, significant that there were no further finds at the gravel pit after his death in 1916.
Patricia – You might be interested in ergotism as a cause of the symptoms exhibited by those cursed by the Salem witches.
Apologies if it’s old news to you. It is a fascinating piece of research which shows how natural horrors required supernatural explanations in the absence of the science to explain them.
Piltdown man might want to read it too – though I doubt he’ll see the significance.

The reason this is so ironically hilarious is that Pilt was so adamant that gays with a secret agenda had infiltrated the priesthood (“the lavender mafia” ), thus leading to the pedophilia scandals. – Owlmirror

Well, I did wonder at the time how he could be so sure of this “lavender mafia” stuff, and now he recommends a work by a notorious homosexual, suspected child abuser, and consorter with magicians. Hmmm…

You Brits love to celebrate Christmas don’t you? – but it has nothing to do with Jesus Christ – it’s all about a jolly red fella who gives you a tingly feeling on Christams morning – Santa’s been Santa’s been… yet you think nothing of you and your childrens salvation and the only doorway that takes you from a red hot fiery pit into Heaven. The reason you think there’s no God – is becasue you have never invited the Holy Spirit into your lives to show you that He exists. You are in a catch 22 – you don’t give your life over to Jesus because you don’t believe – therefore you don’t receive the Holy Spirit that shows you the way. And because you never repent and give your life over – you wll never believe.
So many souls wish they just had one second on earth to repent. But that day will never come. You have that chance now. Repent of your sins, give your life over to Jesus and forgive those that have done you wrong and receive the Holy Spirit. You will then understand what Christians are ranting about. Stop watching those pristine evangilists who do nothing but preach for money and wealth. Stop looking to a specific religion such as being a Catholic or Protestant. Pick up your Holy Bible and read – the truth is there – the Holy Spirit will guide you. Find a church that preaches the truth of the Bible – it does not have to be a great and packed church with thousands of people. God loves a humble spirit. This is not about the world – this is about you and your responibility for your own salvation. This is personal between you and Jesus Christ. For crying out loud, just read your Bible and you will see how prophecy is coming true, year by year – can you afford to be apart of those who lead you away and then in hell you say, “If I had only known, if I had only known, give me that chance now, please give me that chance now, I believe now…” To late.
But you can do it now – forget about the rubbish out there and those Christians who have put you off – go to Jesus alone and humble and you will find the true meaning of a real faith with a real God.
My friends – I live in Africa – it is a hard place, and without the love of Jesus, I would dare to think. You forget that when you mother loves you and you love her – that civility and perect love comes from the commandments of the Bible. Dare to destroy it completely – and I promise that not even your children will be spared – because you will teach them that there are no boundries, and also you will not have the blessing of God who loves it when parents show their children to love Jesus and the truth.

Ooh look – a late arriving retard. Though, sadly, there is some excuse for a prevalence of religious retards in places like Africa. Life there is a lot closer to the harsh conditions of the bronze-agers who collectively made up (ie by plagiarising from each other) that particular rubbish. So that primitive, evil religion resonates with them far more than with civilised people of more advanced morality.

It’s an environment of subsistence living, with very little education or time to think. One where people are living in constant fear (from disease, famine and each other!) and desperately breeding (in lieu of any national health service or social security). And where foreign missionaries are deliberately preying upon those fears and their relative ignorance of reality.

The reason you think there’s no God – is becasue you have never invited the Holy Spirit into your lives to show you that He exists. You are in a catch 22 – you don’t give your life over to Jesus because you don’t believe – therefore you don’t receive the Holy Spirit that shows you the way.

then again it has the opposite effect too. If you already give yourself to Jesus, then why do you need the holy spirit to show you the way? My mother has a bumper sticker on her car, it says “The more I believe in angels, the more I see them” which is exactly the same kind of self-confirming thinking that we as sceptics seek to avoid.

Belief in God is thoroughly useless if one must believe in God to have evidence that God exists. Facts should speak for themselves, while they may be interpreted differently, they should still stand up on their own regardless of what one believes.

“Repent of your sins, give your life over to Jesus and forgive those that have done you wrong and receive the Holy Spirit.”

And people wonder why atheists get peevish every now and then. It’s because we got pricks like this presuming to be able to tell us what to do.

“There’s definitely a God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”

I’m worried. How am I supposed to enjoy my life when I got this God character peering over my shoulder all the time expecting me to grovel because of some crazy self-sacrifice thing he did thousands of years before I was born?